Families of soldiers killed in Iraq can sue for negligence, Supreme Court rules

Private Lee Ellis of the Parachute Regiment from Manchester, who was killed by a roadside bomb while on patrol in Al Amarah, Iraq, in February this year. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Issue date: Monday November 27, 2006. An inquest into his death, and that of Captain Richard Holmes, who was killed in the same blast, begins today. See PA story: INQUEST Iraq. Photo credit should read: MoD Crown copyright/PA.
Kirk Redpath. Ministry of Defence undated handout photo of Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath who along with Lance Sergeant Chris Casey where killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq yesterday. PRESS ASSOCIATION Photo. Issue date: Friday August 10 2007. See PA story DEFENCE Iraq. Photo credit should read: MoD/PA Wire
An undated handout photograph shows British army soldier Private Phillip Hewett who died on patrol in Al Amarah Iraq on July 16, 2005. On Sunday the Ministry of Defence named the three soldiers as Lieutenant Richard Shearer, Private Hewett and Private Leon Spicer from Task Force Maysan, who died when their armoured Land-Rover vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb. NO ARCHIVE, NO SALES, EDITORIAL USE ONLY. REUTERS/HO/MoD

Families of British soldiers killed in combat can sue the Government for breaching their human rights by providing faulty equipment, judges declared in a landmark ruling today.

It could open the floodgates to scores of claims over deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq and result in multi-million pound compensation bills for the Ministry of Defence.

A case was brought involving three men killed by roadside bombs while in lightly-armoured Snatch Land Rovers in Iraq despite years of criticism about their vulnerability of the vehicles.

Judges at the Supreme Court ruled that the MoD owes soldiers a duty of care under the law of negligence.

They backed a ruling by the Court of Appeal that the MoD could be liable if they “failed to provide sufficient protection while on active service”.

Private Phillip Hewett, 21, was killed in July 2005, Pte Lee Ellis, 23, died in February 2006 and Lance Corporal Kirk Redpath, 22, of Romford, was killed in August 2007. L/Cpl Redpath’s father Colin said: “My son was in the Army, he had a job to do. But all we’re saying is, ‘If you are going to send our men and women in the combat zone then you give them the best possible chances’.

“I think we’d been in Iraq for five years when my son died, and there were generals and MPs saying Snatch Land Rovers were not fit for purpose. Well surely that should have all been sorted out by then, after five years.”

Defence Secretary Philip Hammond immediately warned the ruling could hamper British military action.

He said: “I am very concerned at the wider implications of this judgment, which could ultimately make it more difficult for our troops to carry out operations and potentially throws open a wide range of military decisions to the uncertainty of litigation. It can’t be right that troops on operations have to put the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) ahead of what is operationally vital to protect our national security,” he added.

Up to now soldiers who stepped out of military bases in war zones were not covered under the “right to life” in the European convention.

But the Supreme Court ruled today that soldiers’ human rights should be protected even on the battlefield.

The finding means cases could be successfully brought if ministers or Army chiefs send soldiers to war with inadequate equipment.

However, decisions taken by commanders on the battlefield are unlikely to lead to compensation claims.

Relatives want to sue for negligence and make claims under human rights legislation. Supreme Court justices said they can do both.

The case also involved an incident which saw one British Challenger tank fire upon another killing Corporal Stephen Allbutt 35, of Stoke-on-Trent, in 2003. Soldiers Dan Twiddy, of Stamford, and Andy Julien, of Bolton, were badly hurt in the incident.

Trooper David Clarke, 19, of Littleworth, also died during the Challenger incident. The MoD is accused of failing to properly equip the tanks and give soldiers proper “recognition training”.

Lawyer Shubhaa Srinivasan, representing the Challenger claimants, said: “The highest court in the land has now ruled the MoD, as employer, must accept it owes a duty of care to properly equip service personnel who go to war.

“We have constantly argued that the MoD’s position is morally and legally indefensible.” Equality and Human Rights Commission deputy director Wendy Hewitt said: “This is not about interfering with the way military decisions are made in the field but how everyone serving in the armed forces is given the protections they deserve.”

Lawyer Jocelyn Cockburn, who also represented relatives and works for law firm Hodge Jones & Allen, said after today’s ruling: “I think what they have established is what seems to many families is common sense — that soldiers have human rights, and they do remain within the jurisdiction of the UK, and they don’t lose those because they are on the battlefield.”

She added: “It is clearly in the public interest that the authorities are legally required to consider the safety of their soldiers in times of military conflict. Safety will not be the only consideration or even perhaps the primary consideration but it is right that our soldiers should expect to be properly equipped.”